|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.44.22.213
In Reply to: My first SACD in over a year: the Channel Fischer Mahler 2nd. posted by jdaniel on January 1, 2007 at 18:11:58:
Thank you for your comments. I found them interesting, enlightening and refreshing (no mention of the pause:).But seriously a couple of things, I agree, to a point, about the "hyper realistic" presentation of the explosive climaxes. I don't believe this is a SACD issue. I recall thinking (and in this forum) writing much about the same thing regarding recordings, especially Telarc vinyl recordings (and later CD) from the 70s as well CDs in general. Secondly, I don't ever recall any vinyl recordings, (including my direct-to-disc), that match with respect to dynamics, what has been demonstrated with some of the ladder day SACD recordings, with all due respect given your well stated comments. Thirdly, the SACD recordings (and may be their Red Book layers) such as the Fischer Mahler 2nd comes as close as I remember (admittedly faulty) to what I heard live in concerts featuring, Saint Saens "Organ Symphony", Prokofiev 5th and Mahler's 6th. A *very* expensive rig (and perhaps many that are not so expensive but damn good) such as the Rockport I auditioned *can* do wonders, but at the expense of "soft clipping" the dynamics. But this can sound far better and more realistic than a digital climax done incorrectly or over done.
You pondered:
***Will there ever be a format and delivery system that surpasses good vinyl?**
My multi-channel system, at least in the areas that you were critical of SACD above, *readily* and *easily* surpasses good vinyl.
Follow Ups:
Robert,Your MCH system is very high quality and probably avoids whatever it is that upsets people about digital. I wonder if the reason for so many still preferring vinyl to SACD is that the output from the LP phono stage presents an easier signal for the pre-amp to handle and is much less likely to push it beyond its capabilities. The dynamic range of LP is lower than SACD and the frequency response is narrower.
I have recently gone back to my ATC SCA2 preamp for the front channels of my MCH system and am intrigued by its 'ease' and greater openness compared to the Krell Showcase pre-processor I use for the MCH sources. Krell, unlike ATC, are secretive about their specifications but I'd guess that overload margins as well as power delivery are behind this difference.
As for Mahler's 'Resurrection' Symphony, I own a rather silly 18 performances, 4 of them on SACD, and for performances that thrill and move me I would hand the palm to either Klemperer and the Philharmonia or to Abbado and the Lucerne Festival Orchestra on DVD Video.
Dave
You make an important point, one that many never discover or discover very late. That is, in a digital system the line stage is not to be given short shrift. In most cases I would rank the line stage with respect to the ultimate sound character as being considerably more important than the digital player.
Robert C. Lang
Dave writes to Robert:"Your MCH system is very high quality and probably avoids whatever it is that upsets people about digital. I wonder if the reason for so many still preferring vinyl to SACD is that the output from the LP phono stage presents an easier signal for the pre-amp to handle and is much less likely to push it beyond its capabilities. The dynamic range of LP is lower than SACD and the frequency response is narrower."
Possibly, but in my case, the better and more able my downstream components, the worse digital sounded. I just refuse at this point to go beyond $3500 for a cd/sacd player.
Thank you for your good-natured comeback. I meant my earlier pause comments as tongue in cheek; I hope that they came across that way.You write:
"I don't ever recall any vinyl recordings, (including my direct-to-disc), that match with respect to dynamics, what has been demonstrated with some of the ladder day SACD recordings, with all due respect given your well stated comments."I think that with dynamics, CD and SACD can be lumped together. (I found SACD's forte to be more dimensional sound and more honest textures and timbres.) I find that with digital, the louder the sound, the small the room gets; and with vinyl, the louder the sound, the larger the room, or soundstage gets. It could be distortion trickery, but I don't care. I have to say though: the final gong and bass drum thwack at the last word of the final chorus is the loudest thing I've ever heard.
My subjective response to your observations about digital being more, er...dynamic than Lp is this, and it surprised even me: I don't find digital preferable or more innately exciting than Lp because of the former's increased dynamic range. Why? I don't know except to say that Lp uniquely manages to communicate the hall's response to a loud passage which adds to the excitement.
My following comments strictly focuses on the area of dynamic range, so they in no way refute your thoughtful misgivings of the Fischer Mahler 2nd.You said:
"I find that with digital, the louder the sound, the small the room gets; and with vinyl, the louder the sound, the larger the room, or soundstage gets. It could be distortion trickery, but I don't care."
This is an interesting observation and I will need to do further listening with your observation in mind before I can directly respond. (Although I don't think it's a good thing that a soundstage or room would get larger with increased loudness, unless I'm missing the concept).
BUT I have, over the years (before and after digital), always noted a similar phenomenon for completely different reasons. The most common reason I found was the gear, especially speakers. I have always maintained, and still do, that *the* Achilles hill for life like dynamics in the home listening experience has been the inability of most speakers (to this day) to cope with the wide dynamics of music across the full bandwidth. All speakers have their limits and when it is reached (in most cases *very* easy to do) the simply compress the music in order to survive.
I have never been a fan of horns, although my bias' have lessened in recent year, but they more than any other speaker type can deal with the dynamics of *live* music.
The second most common reason I have found for "fluctuation of soundstage", especially compression, during climaxes have been the lack of sufficient amplification power, especially tubes (although not tubes mated with horns).
Tied for second, I found to be the vinyl (not analog) format *itself*. All but the very best arms/cartridges can track the demands of, for example, the Fischer Mahler 2nd, without audible distortion or flat out mistracking. So, the vinyl industry itself compressed the climaxes on recordings to that the "average Joe" could cope. You can *hear* the compression on many vinyl recording. All one has to do is look at the vinyl itself; in non-audiophile recordings it is easy to see the compression of the grooves during the loudest pages.
I'm not sure if it is even *fair* to compare the dynamics (dynamic range) of Fischer' Mahler 2nd and countless other SACD recordings to vinyl (may be to reel-to-reel, but not to vinyl). That's because I don't believe that it is even *possible* to, consistently, produce vinyl that contain the dynamic range magnitude of a Fischer type recording without serious playback issues for almost all listeners. (Theoretically, it's possible (barely), but it is not a practical possibility).
But the bottom line is that SACD multi-channel, (two-channel to a lesser extent) helps makes all the concerns that you describe, lessen dramatically, or almost go away completely. One reason for this seems quite simple, there is more "real estate" (speakers) to deal with the workload. But most of it has to do with the science of multi-channel SACD; it provides more resolution and more inherent soundstage to begin with.
Most SACD releases now are multi-channel. Multi-channel is (now)the reason for SACD. If you have not adequately explored multi-channel SACD you have not adequately explored SACD. Don't miss the boat.
Robert,Having recorded on EVERY professional audio format since 1970 including nearly 20 years of lacquer mastering for vinyl, I can safely say: you are RIGHT ON with your assessment of why some playback systems have difficulty with SACD and digital sources in general. You're also right on with why some may actually PREFER the euphonic color of vinyl playback and how the format handles extreme dynamic range. Additionally, you are correct in saying that MCH can handle extreme dynamics with more ease than the typical stereo system simply because of the vast audio real estate that carries and plays back the signal. We're not forcing five gallons of sound through a 2-gallon container.
I can guarantee you that program dynamics on the releases WE have made have NEVER been exxagerated, ever! The dynamics represented are simply the result of removing any limiting factors in the signal chain from microphones on out. With the c**p removed from the typical recording chain, we never had to make anything MORE dynamic. We never had to close-mic bass drums, etc to get dramatic effect, contrary to audio myth. In the "old days," a tremendous effort was made to fit the dynamic range of our digital sources onto the lacquer master and still have the resulting vinyl pressing be able to play at all. DSD and multi-channel SACD have pretty much removed most of the obstactles between what we record and what the home listener can experience - with the right system!
Unfortunately, the weakest link in any recording or playback system will always be the mechanical transducers, i.e.: microphones, speakers, phono cartridges & stylii. Everything else in-between is pretty easy to get right!
Best Regards,
My friend and I hear a lot of live music in Davies Hall, San Fransisco. Two experiences stand out from the rest: Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, (recorded by RCA as we listened), and Mahler's grand "Symphony of a Thousand" back in '02? Maybe?In any case, the first (FIRST) reaction from both me and my friend was this: "It wasn't as loud as CD." Let's have a moment of silence and think about this for a moment.
Mr. Lang writes at length about speakers and dynamics. I ask: What does it matter if digital over-emphasizes (sp) to begin with???
My last observation, as I believe that both Mr. Lang and Mr. Bishop truly believe that multi-channel is the cat's meow:
Vinyl creates the illusion of live as well, but is more of a half-circle imaging: the orchestra hangs between and behind the speakers on vinyl in a way that is more persuasive than any CD player I've heard. I believe Mr. Bishop and I use the same speakers, at least from the waist up: I use Vandersteen 3A sigs, and Mr. Bishop uses the 5A's??
I experimented with surround, though in the end, I couldn't move my chair to the middle of the room for optimal enjoyment. The rear and center channel ambience was indeed helpful in creating a "live" experinece, IF one's desire is to be in the conductor's shoes. If one's desire is to hear the music from 20 rows back, vinyl does the job. Dynamic range, and I can't emphasize this enough: is not the last word when it comes to "musicality!"
My plea to Telarc: Make records again!
I'm not sure what position you are referring to in the subject line.I'm recording on the format I prefer (DSD) and when the project's released on SACD, I feel it's the best representation of what I recorded when played back on an equal system. I can't ask for more than that! I consider myself very fortunate to be working for a label that supports that kind of work.
There's no getting around the fact that lacquer masters and vinyl pressings have some technical "imperfections" that give the characteristics to vinyl playback that fans love. That's what I mean when calling the format "euphonic." I, for one, am happy to leave those characteristics to others to employ. I don't like those characteristics imposed on my recordings, and that's my preference. While I have a bit of influence in choosing the Telarc release formats, it's really not up to me ultimately. I'm really happy that our best stuff gets out there on SACD and in surround, though!
Best Regards,
"There's no getting around the fact that lacquer masters and vinyl pressings have some technical "imperfections" that give the characteristics to vinyl playback that fans love. That's what I mean when calling the format "euphonic."Thank you for responding. I can't tell you how excited I used to be to save up my money in '81 as a Junior in High School, and buy Telarc albums--then go home and play them on a Sound-design turntable....I wish I still had Shaw's Carmina Burana, it routinely sells for $100+ on ebay. I used to examine the ultra-wide grooves in the sun in the car on the way home.
Anyway: Even if vinyl is euphonic, it drives me crazy when everyone stops there--it's so much more than that! Besides vinyl delivering better timbral honesty, better concert-hall atmosphere, and a supreme delicacy; there is one fundamental difference that won me over, and I didn't hear it even on a top-of-the-line SACD surround system: that fundamental difference is an "anchoring" of the entire soundstage and the instruments in it. (Forgive my awkward metaphors.) When listening to vinyl, there is simply more "traction" and laser-like focus to the sounds, individually and collectively. This anchoring and traction lends much more "physicality" to both rhythms and the actually creation of sound from an instrument. I believe this is what people are talking about when they discuss the "soul" of music. It's the best description I can give after days of careful thought and listening.
I had the wonderful opportunity to visit Mr. Robert Lang in Oakland, CA last weekend to hear is amazing surround system. (Great guy, beautiful house, beautiful family.) We couldn't listen to vinyl, but I had a chance to hear surround SACD on the two-piece Meitner player into matched speakers of which I can't remember the name. I can't imagine it getting better than this. We listened to the Linn Barber/Poulenc SACD. It was thrilling, the organ coming from full-range rears was awesome. Still, the soundstage and imaging was loosely-hinged which adversely affected rhythms and textures. Next was an SACD of the Widor Mass, also thrilling: I think surround is great in capturing large, reverberant acoustics in which the sound kind of floats around anyway.
The good news, if you haven't fallen asleep yet,: ) is when we got around to the Telarc SACDs, namely the Jarvi Lutoslawski, (a great demonstration piece, as each string choir enters one at a time), suddenly the soundstage was indeed anchored and textures in excellent focus, better than any other SACDs to which we listened that day, but...IMHO, listening after I got home, I vinyl focused and anchored better still, especially focus. Mr. Lang was quick to point out that the art of recording in surround is pretty young, and will surely get better. I agree.
The biggest surprise of the day was listening to plain old CD on the Meitner. I was drop-jawed at the level of soundstage width and depth and luminous textures that the player produced. If only I had $10K+, LOL. But then I could buy back all the Telarc records I gave away during the Great Record Purges of '85.
I have spent over three times the amount of money on my vinyl rig
(VPI Scoutmaster, Shelter 901 Cary PH-302)as I did on my SACD player (Sony XA-777) By all accounts I have a very good vinyl front-end. And yet vinyl performance on my system does not come close to MCH SACD when the best of both are compared. It does come very close to SACD on 2CH but my SACD player still takes the lead. I try to compare the best of both media in order to ensure a comparson of "apples" to "apples".To be honest I wish this were NOT the case. I have many more records than I do SACDs and there is a lot of used vinyl out there in excellent condition. If I bought a Rockport, complete with a Boulder phono preamp would my vinyl front end be better than my SACD player? Probably, but dollar for dollar it's not even close.
Please register and post your system. That way, I can see what equipment you are using to make your comparison and whether you have objectively evaluated high-end discrete MCH sound. This is not a put-down Good music MCH systems, as opposed to HT systems, are few and far between.
.
I'm not sure but I think your moniker will be in boldface oance you have registered.
Robert C. Lang
nt
****"My friend and I hear a lot of live music in Davies Hall, San Fransisco. Two experiences stand out from the rest: Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, (recorded by RCA as we listened), and Mahler's grand "Symphony of a Thousand" back in '02? Maybe?
In any case, the first (FIRST) reaction from both me and my friend was this: "It wasn't as loud as CD." Let's have a moment of silence and think about this for a moment."********”Mr. Lang writes at length about speakers and dynamics. I ask: What does it matter if digital over-emphasizes (sp) to begin with???”****
Please explain what does this have to do with CD vs. vinyl. Are you saying that the ability to capture dynamic contrasts (the difference between the quietest passages and the loudest passages) or greater for CD than what actually occurred at the live performances you cited? And if so, are you saying also that this exaggeration of contrasts, especially to boost loudness, is an "inherent" foible of digital? Or are you saying that digital recording engineers have a tendency to boost the juice in the loudest passages and that vinyl recording engineers don’t do the same? I believe it serves no useful purpose to blame the format in this case.
I, too, find that music that I play at home is louder (by about 2-3 db or greater depending on my mood) than when I attend a live orchestral concert (of course that will dramatically differ depending on the seat in the hall, at Davies Hall for sure! And also, of course, this has little to do with dynamic “contrasts”). But that's my “fault” not the “fault” of the format and I tend to play my music at roughly the same levels whether the source is vinyl or digital, it doesn't matter.
Look, I agree with you that the dynamics of some recordings are “hyped”. But vinyl is in no way exempt from this affliction. In fact, the age-old vinyl quest to achieve the latest “sonic blockbuster” not uncommonly resulted in over-saturated recordings because of the limits of the format, poor engineering, and/or because of the inability of the turntables/arms/cartridges to adequately handle the loudest, most bass laden passages. To be sure, I do have vinyl in my collection that do a superb job on these type of recordings, but they are more likely to be (not always) “audiophile” discs, especially direct-to-disc, that come closest to what I hear at Davies Hall (to use your reference point).
But among all classical recordings in my collection, comparing even randomly selected SACD to “handpicked” vinyl, both to which I compare to a Davies Hall like experience, SACD has a much higher rate of success across the spectrum, but specifically with respect to wide dynamics (since that what we are focusing on at the moment).
***”My last observation, as I believe that both Mr. Lang and Mr. Bishop truly believe that multi-channel is the cat's meow:”****You believe that vinyl is the cat’s meow, true? Based on your comments, I believe I have a far deeper appreciation of and more relevant experience with vinyl than you have with SACD multi-channel. Certainly Mr. Bishop has far deeper understanding of the strengths and weakenesses of both formats than either of us. I recommend that you obtain more relevant experience with SACD multi-channel before you pass judgement on a format that you know little about (based on your words). Since we both apparently live in the San Francisco Bay Area I would be happy to help you out.
***”I believe Mr. Bishop and I use the same speakers, at least from the waist up: I use Vandersteen 3A sigs, and Mr. Bishop uses the 5A's??***”
That borders on being completely irrelevent for many reasons. But looking at *only* the ability to replicate wide dynamics and demanding bass of, say the Fischer Mahler 2 (to bring us back to your emphsis of your thread), the Vandersteen 5A is audibly and measurably superior, by a significant margin to the 3A, even though tonally they are both in the same league of being the “cat’s meow” in my opinion. PLUS Mr. Bishop has 5 of the Vandersteen 5As. A pair of 3A’s, as muuch as I admire them, compared to five 5As in a multi-channel SACD configuration, would not stand a smidgen of a chance to bring to life what the Fischer recording has to offer both in terms of dynamics or the imaging that you describe.
***”Dynamic range, and I can't emphasize this enough: is not the last word when it comes to "musicality!"”***.
Agreed. In fact, for the major part of the inventory wide dynamic range is a relative minor consideration. But dynamic range is a *critical* ingredient to the successful implementation of many compositions, such as the Mahler, which is why the composer wrote them in the score and called for such large forces to pull it off.
But generally, as superior that some believe that vinyl is to SACD or CD (I have listened to far more vinyl than CD in recent years) I know of one person who has both an extensive collection of vinyl and reel-to-reel tapes. He believes his reel-to-reel, is far superior, particularly in head to head comparisons of the same performances.
Is reel-to-reel king? I don’t think so. One thing that many vinyl devotees have in common, which is a casualty of their devotion to medium, is that they are stuck in stereo. Most are completely missing the boat (many in a cavalier manner), akin to their mono predecessors who for years deprecated stereo, to the virtues of well-done multi-channel SACD, of which there are now hundreds of releases. Like most of us I hold on to for dear life to the technology to which I grew up on. I don’t dismiss technology simply because its old. Most often I’m guilty to hold on to technology because it is old and tried. But to me SACD multi-channel trumps it so (or can) soundly, including SOTA vinyl systems, that it is simply no longer an issue.
I can imagine that 5 Vandy 5a's would be quite something. It brings a smile to my face, kind of akin to being in front of an engine of my father's B-52."I recommend that you obtain more relevant experience with SACD multi-channel before you pass judgement on a format that you know little about (based on your words). Since we both apparently live in the San Francisco Bay Area I would be happy to help you out."
I think 3 months with 20 audiophile channels was enough, but I must admit, I used an additional amp for the rear and center speakers, (though all speakers were same brand), and I could only drag my listening chair to about 3 feet of the ideal center. I live in Sacramento but often visit SF on Sundays. I would love to hear a properly set up system. And if anyone is interested in the Sacramento area, my door is always open if one wants to hear Classical vinyl for the first time "in years." I was able to set up my two channel system quite properly.
***"I think 3 months with 20 audiophile channels was enough"***It's the strength not the length (as our high school teacher would say).
****"I live in Sacramento but often visit SF on Sundays. I would love to hear a properly set up system".****Come on by. You can contact me directly through my web site that is listed in Inmate Systems.
HowdyIf you ever get up to the Seattle area you're welcome here and MikeL is a very gracious host with the best vinyl system I've ever heard.
HowdyI wouldn't respond to your rude posts if I were him. He often responds to polite posts.
His posts so far square with my experience and I infer from your post that you don't have as much MC experience as some of us...
A good friend of mine has a very nice TT, room, speakers, amps, preamps, etc. ( http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/663.html ) I still prefer listening to MC in my space. MC can give (and does deliver most of the time IMO) a much better soundstage, sense of immediacy, ... i.e. a much better sense of "being there" than the best stereo has to offer TT or not. I find this true for both minimalist recorded and "overproduced" music.
I was hoping that of all people in the music industry that he would buckle. While I do not define the quality of my existence by the quality of my reproduced music in my home, it is my humble opinion that digital--hi rez or not-- was the wrong way to go. Even in multi-channel. If you disagree, well...we're Americans and we'll move on.
Gramophone, etc. and read a bad review of a release that just cost the company tens of thousands of $$ to produce can certainly handle my humble opinion. Your corrective posts are just silly.I also respect Mr. Bishops craft and survival in the business for almost 30 years now?
I've just begun to wonder if all of us, producers and listeners have forgotten how live music really sounds. I also think that the common dismissal of vinyl's strengths as "euphony" is condescending. Ironically the word has been used to describe SACD sound as well.
Every project my colleagues and I work on starts as live music. Part of the session preparation is to first hear the music performed in rehearsal and in-concert, sometimes over several concerts. How else would one know where to start? Post-concert meetings take place between the conductor, soloists, producer and engineer before a single note is recorded.Recorded music will not fool anyone into thinking it's live music. Since every form of recorded music has its own "euphony," I'm not sure I see how calling vinyl playback "euphonic" is condescending. I apologize if you took it that way, but it certainly was not intended to be.
Best Regards,
HowdyAnd I have a lot of surround music (from Telarc as well as others) which sound quite a bit like live. As I said surround (IMO and system) sounds a lot more like live than stereo (from any source I've heard) and hence I think Mr. Bishop is on the right track. You never hear me talking about vinyl euphony.
Let me play backseat record company president. (When I was younger, I wanted to *be* you, and do what you do. Oh well.I don't think Mr. Spano and Mr. Jarvi, your house conductors, are very good. Sensible, competent, yes; but that's about it. I would look up two very under-rated conductors, Mark Wigglesworth, (just listen to his Vaughan Williams Job on Collins oop), and Giselle ben Dor, (listen to here Ginastera Panambi on Conifer, oop) Huge talents with "sums greater than parts," as they say. As a musician myself, these people are the real deal.
.
Of course I do. I have too many recordings I made released only on LP. Maybe someday my kids will want to hear what we did back then.I have the utmost respect for anyone that has put together a SOTA vinyl playback system. I know what dedication and expense it takes to do that. I fully appreciate the experience of great vinyl playback.
I also have various models of Edison cylinder players, Victrolas, wire recorders, etc. in the basement.
Best Regards,
"I have the utmost respect for anyone that has put together a SOTA vinyl playback system. I know what dedication and expense it takes to do that. I fully appreciate the experience of great vinyl playback."You make it sound as though one must finance and have experience in the construction of Particle Accelerators. (Not that there's anything complicated or expensive about listening in surround correctly...). : )
*** You can *hear* the compression on many vinyl recording. All one has to do is look at the vinyl itself; in non-audiophile recordings it is easy to see the compression of the grooves during the loudest pages. ***Can you elaborate on how you can distinguish the use of compression by looking at the grooves?
I've done quite a lot of transfers of LPs to digital, and so far I have not been able to discern a relationship between dynamics and how the grooves look.
It may be helpful if I make clear the type of discs I was referring to. I am referring specifically to recordings of compositions of the *widest* dynamic range in the repertoire, such as Mahler's 2nd Symphony (the subject of this thread) and other Romantic/modern classical composers of this ilk such as Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Shostakovich, you get the idea. These are the *only* discs that I was referring to, not a general collection of discs (most of which certainly do not have significant groove fluctuation). I would suspect that only a small percentage of discs in any given collection would meet that criterion (*widest* dynamic range in the repertoire), even in my heavily Romantic classical collection.You said: "I've done quite a lot of transfers of LPs to digital, and so far I have not been able to discern a relationship between dynamics and how the grooves look."
So now that is (hopefully) clear exactly what discs I was referring to, of the transfers of LPs to digital that you have completed how many, if any, of those discs are of compositions you would consider to be of the "widest dynamic range in the repertoire"? Please name those discs?
Also, are you familiar with the Fischer Mahler 2nd? If not, are you familiar with any SACD Mahler 2nd (the ones I have all have very wide dynamic range)?
Finally, do you have vinyl of a Mahler 2nd Symphony? Do you have vinyl of other recordings that can be described as of the widest dynamic range in the repertoire? If so, what are they?
These are straightforward questions that when you answer them we may be better able to understand each other's point of view.
Robert C. Lang
Robert, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "widest dynamic range", and I'm not you are clear yourself.There are many potential definitions for the dynamic range of a recording, and all are valid depending on context:
- the difference, expressed in dB between the hottest peak and the noise floor
- the absolute value of the hottest peak in relation to a reference (0dBFS)
- the difference between a peak (not necessarily the highest) and the average amplitude, again expressed in dBIn terms of vinyl vs SACD (or digital in general), I would assert the following:
- difference between hottest peak and noise floor: digital wins, as even a mediocre A/D converter will easily deliver S/N greater than 90dB, whereas vinyl tends to have S/N around 60-70dB (although it is possible for LPs to reach 90dB by using good quality vinyl and potentially recording hotter than reference)
- absolute value of the hottest peak: vinyl wins. As I've discussed before, it is possible to record and play back with good accuracy signals hotter than 0dB on vinyl (and tape). The amount of headroom above 0dB varies, but typically +6-10dB is possible for vinyl (based on empirical measurements), and +10-15dB on tape (under ideal conditions).
- difference between peak and average: the jury is out on this. Uncompressed live music tend to have peak to average values of 20-30dB. Theoretically, I don't see any reason why either analog or digital can't achieve this. However, empirically, I tend to observe higher peak to average values on vinyl rather than digital (slightly compressing peaks is a common practice in digital recordings, which I will explain later).So in terms of actually answering your questions, the answer depends on which definition of "widest dynamic range" you mean. I suspect you are probably thinking of the first definition (difference between highest peak and noise floor) but the most useful definition is actually the third (which is what I suspect jdaniels mean when he says vinyl seems to be more dynamic than SACD).
But even for the first definition, things are not as clear cut as they may seem. Yes, in theory digital has better S/N than analog. However, in practice, there are some advantages to analog due to the headroom above 0dB.
A good microphone has a dynamic range of around 130dB. This is sufficient to capture all but the loudest sounds (it falls just short of being able to capture a modern symphony orchestra at full fortissimo - which can peak at 140dB SPL!).
However, even the very best A/D converters struggle to deliver much above 120dB in terms of dynamic range. So, a recording engineer has to make a difficult decision - drop the bottom 10dB in order to capture the peaks accurately, or compress the peaks to fit within the 120dB dynamic range window.
For various reasons which I won't go into, best practice suggests compressing the peaks deliver a better end result.
Put it this way, if you actually set the recording level such that 0dBFS correponds to the maximum signal possible from the microphone (let's assume this is 130dB SPL), you will find that most of your recordings will sound rather dull and murky. I know this from experience, based on my own recordings (done using mics with at least 120dB dynamic range, and pro audio A/D converters). In the early days, digital recordings were actually done this way, which is why so many early digital recordings sound murky to our ears (amongst other reasons).
So you'll find on most modern digital recordings slight peak compression, in order to raise the recording level. The peak limiting doesn't have to be done digitally - for a "pure DSD" recording the peak limiting can actually happen in the analog domain prior to A/D. You can buy mic preamps with peak limiting functions, and many people (including myself) use them.
Analog on the other hand has the advantage of headroom above 0dB, so it is possible to record at higher levels relative to digital, with the knowledge that it's "safe" for peaks to go beyond 0dB and still be captured reasonably accurately.
Recording at a higher level has a huge advantage: it means the noise floor of the electronics as well as the recording media is pushed lower, and as a result the recording is "cleaner". This advantage pretty much offsets the S/N advantage of digital, which is why a lot of recording engineers still prefer to record in analog (and avoid peak limiting), but then edit in digital.
One final point: most systems and living rooms struggle to reproduce higher than about 70dB of usable dynamic range. Most amps and speakers would struggle to deliver more than about 110dB SPL, and few living rooms have ambient noise quieter than about 40-50dB SPL, so the useful reproduction dynamic range is around 60-70dB. This pretty much nullifies the dynamic range superiority of digital, because any signal captured below -70dB is masked by the ambient noise of the playback environment.
So, going back to your question on the "widest dynamic range" - any content greater than about 70dB of dynamic range is pretty much a moot point, since you can only hear around 70dB anyway. And any decent turntable can reproduce hotter than reference level signals, which means it's possible for vinyl to sound "hotter" than any digital source (relatively speaking).
But the most useful metric is peak to average, since that is *usually* what people mean by "dynamics" and the most audible. On that, I would assert that there's no inherent advantage in either format, but empirically I tend to find higher peak to average on vinyl compared to digital (I even wrote an article about this some time ago, I'm sure you've read it).
PS - I do own two Mahler 2nds on SACD - MTT and Kaplan I believe. I don't think I have Mahler 2 on LP. I do agree that both of them sound very dynamic (in terms of peak to average). But I find a lot of my LPs very dynamic too - particularly the early ones which were recorded with no peak compression (apart from the natural "compression" you get from a tube stage and the microphone technology of the time). Indeed it's very hard to record these LPs onto digital due to the headroom above 0dB - lately I've been contemplating doing some peak limiting in order to raise the recording level up to make them less murky.
You should know that we have never employed peak compression on our classical releases. That still applies today on our SACD classical releases.As to vinyl playback delivering peaks hotter than digital, even if we were comparing equal reference levels, which we are not, the peaks on vinyl playback have much more THD than digital peaks by a long shot. Heck, past the 7.5 inch diameter, "groove pinch" causes overall THD to climb dramatically. Better tonearms can reduce this effect, but the distortion still rises dramatically due to the lower effective rotational speed of the disk past that point.
Best Regards,
The most straightforward example of relationship between dynamics and how the grooves look is any Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture, but any dynamically wide-ranging LP will do. (Pop, Rock, or elevator music will not do, but classical chamber music should also work for my example).As I'm writing this I have before me Telarc's 1812 Overture on vinyl. By looking at the grooves (with the naked eye) you can see where the canons hit. With even a magnifying glass of even weak strength can see where the canons hit to the nano second, and you will say to yourself, wow! It is no wonder that tone arms have difficulty staying in the grooves at that point. The grooves have shear rises and drops. The grooves are very wide, almost like the unused space between the end of the music and the label.
I also have before me Ormandy's 1812 on RCA Red Seal. This version is very much compressed compared to the Telarc. So, the grooves, compared to the Telarc, are close together. Nevertheless, the loud passages are, too, very visible compared to the quieter passages on the same disc.This is why you can fit so much more chamber music on an LP than you can music with wide dynamics.
(Also, with an LP with both quiet and loud passages if you hold it up to the light the more uniform quiet passages will look dark black, while the more uneven louder passages will look "gray/black")
Interestingly, Jared Sacks of Channel Classics (see threads below) explanation on why the entire Mahler 2nd could not fit on a single disc, cited the wide-ranging dynamics of the piece which would not allow for it all to fit. That was brand new to me. I did not realize that digital had those types of "analog" limitations.
Robert C. Lang
Thanks for your reply. I think I know what you are getting at.*** As I'm writing this I have before me Telarc's 1812 Overture on vinyl. By looking at the grooves (with the naked eye) you can see where the canons hit. With even a magnifying glass of even weak strength can see where the canons hit to the nano second, and you will say to yourself, wow! It is no wonder that tone arms have difficulty staying in the grooves at that point. The grooves have shear rises and drops. The grooves are very wide, almost like the unused space between the end of the music and the label. ***
The widening of the groove spacing is a common technique to allow loud passages to track better. But it does not mean that a well designed and properly setup turntable is not able to track loud passages in narrow grooves.
As I've said before, I have transferred quite a few LPs to digital (probably a quarter of my collection). I can tell you there is very little correlation between the actual dynamics present on the LP and how wide the groove spacing (apparently) is. I have seen LPs with very narrow groove spacing that has dynamics far in excess of LPs with wide groove spacing.
I think you are probably underestimating the ability for a well designed stylus to track very sudden and loud transients. If you think about it, that's what a scratch (which creates a loud "pop") looks like to a needle. Most good LP decks should have no problems even tracking very deep scratches (of course, whether the amp and/or speaker can reproduce the resultant spike is a different matter - I tend to agree with you that most systems struggle with very large and sudden transients - I have measured "pops" from scratches in excess of +10dBFS - which is why I always allow 12dB of headroom when transferring from LP).
I generally find that even deep scratches produce very clean transients, in fact far cleaner than I would have thought possible given issues with arm and/or platter resonance, stylus tracking etc. On most of my transfers, scratches/pops come out as an almost perfect square impulse lasting 1-5 samples, which means a "pop" generally lasts for less than a millisecond, with no signs of ringing or other artefacts associated with mistracking. They are so clean I can easily digitally edit them out (and I do, for the really intrusive ones).
So, if a stylus can track pops so well, one can infer it should be able to handle "normal" music (yes, even the cannons in 1812) with no problems, even if the groove spacing is narrow.
As for SACD, the amount of compression you can achieve depends on the material. I wouldn't be surprised if a very dynamic recording of an orchestra compresses less than a quiet recording. Hence issues in terms of the maximum amount of playing time per disc - it varies (slightly). In the extreme case, pure noise does not compress at all, hence a recording of pure noise would take up twice as much space as a "normal" piece of music (DST, the lossless compression scheme for SACD, is designed for a target compression ratio of about 2:1).
First to keep things in *some* perspective, this is germane to the discussion on the Fischer Mahler 2nd and numerous other SACDs (and DVD-A I'm sure) is that now there are *routinely* many wide-ranging recordings out there that are not found and will probably not ever be found on vinyl (not without dialing back the dynamics so that all (not a select few) turntables can track them *perfectly*. There are now more discs that have "1812" type dynamics than ever before as the quest to approach the dynamics of a live scenario (for better or worse) continues. The beauty of SACD is that any player can track the most dynamic recordings out there (or at least it doesn't take an expensive set). This is simply not true for vinyl as far as I know. Remember tracking and tracking perfectly are very two different things.****I have seen LPs with very narrow groove spacing that has dynamics far in excess of LPs with wide groove spacing.****
Absolutely! That's why it is important you compare a specific disc(s)that has *both* very quiet passages and very loud passages in the same performance. In that case (unless the engineer was riding gain, that is, compressing the loud passages) the loud passages will always consume more vinyl space (wider passages) than the quiet passages. (Or unless they are trying to squeeze more on the LP side than can be comfortably accomodated). The loud passages need more real estate everything else being equal.
This is *definitely* the case with the two specific 1812 Overture examples I gave to you.
So, agreed, you may (will) see LPs with very narrow groove spacing that has dynamics exceed LPs with wide groove spacing but probably not from the same label (or recording team). There are many examples of 6 cylinder engines that are more powerful than 8 cylinder engines, but generally not within same product line.
So before you compare labels to each other (which is what you have seem to have done) first compare Telarc to Telarc or RCA to RCA, preferably with the same recording team. You will find in both cases that the loud passages will have wider grooves that the quiet passages. True, you may find that the loud passages on the RCA are actually less wide than the more quiet passages of the Telarc. You will also find that the Telarc with the wide spacing for the loudest passages will (generally) *sound* less compressed and much more dynamic.
"So, if a stylus can track pops so well, one can infer it should be able to handle "normal" music (yes, even the cannons in 1812) with no problems, even if the groove spacing is narrow."
I don't see a "complete" correlation here, (especially since typically the narrow grooves, that contain the quiet passages are easier to track) so I won't address that point. But all 1812 recordings hardly give tone arms the same challenge. Some are no challenge at all! And they sound like it. What wide ranging 1812 Overture that you own that utilizes narrow grooves (especially in relation to the quiet passages on *that* disc)? Even my compressed Ormandy version has grooves that are *visibly* wider than the quiet passages on that disc.
Also, there were then and as now set ups that could track the Telarc 1812, but only with *great* difficulty and at great cost or compromise to sound quality. The very best sounding (that are often the heavist tracking) couldn't track it very well. Even today high-end dealers do not want to risk embarrassment by that disc. How well does your set up track it (Telarc)?
While I have thousands of vinyl I have not purchased any in 7 years. I'm sure there may be *some* but in the vinyl world are discs being routinely pressed that approach what we are seeing today with SACDs?
Do you have the Fischer Mahler 2nd?
Before we go much further, I must point out I'm not trying to pick a fight here, and as you well know I like SA-CD a lot and I have stated in the past vinyl is my least favourite format for many reasons.*** The beauty of SACD is that any player can track the most dynamic recordings out there ***
Conversely, I could argue that all digital formats have a hard ceiling in terms of maximum amplitude that can be captured, whereas analog on the other hand has no artificial upper limit.
Think of it this way, you can never record a digital signal higher than 0dBFS, by definition. If you do, the signal clips.
Whereas there's no artificial limit in terms of how "hot" you can cut a signal on LP. Theoretically, if you master at a slow enough cutting speed, and your stylus is up to it, you can record a groove containing a signal hotter than a notional "0dBFS". This is not just theory, it actually happens in real life. I did mention that I record my LPs with about 12dB headroom. That headroom is necessary, because I regularly encounter signals hotter than the notional 2V maximum (for line levels coming out of my phono stage). It depends on the recording, and the pressing. But it's not uncommon.
*** the loud passages will always consume more vinyl space (wider passages) than the quiet passages. ***
As I've mentioned before, this is not necessarily the case. The loud passage can consume exactly the same space as the quiet passages.
It seems from your post you think the groove spacing must be increased for loud passages relative to the quiet ones, but this is not so. It is good practice to widen the groove spacing for difficult (i.e. loud and dynamic) passages, but it doesn't have to be so. In fact, you don't need to vary the groove spacing at all as long as it's wide enough to accommodate the hottest peak. As I mentioned before, based on my experience, there's little or no correlation between groove spacing and actual signal amplitude. In fact, the LP I own with the widest groove spacing happens to be a very quiet LP, it's because each side only contains about 8 minutes or so, so the cutting engineer decided to cut the record with very widely spaced grooves to fill out the side.
If you want to argue differently based on two specific records in your collection, that's fine. I'm just saying that's not my experience for most of my record collection.
Mastering lathe cutting pitch does NOT effect the level of the recorded signal. It's the other way around. The level of the recorded signal controls the cutting pitch. The cutting system pre-delay simply tells the lathe what pitch must be set one revolution ahead for the upcoming signal. That's how more than 15 minutes of playing time can be achieved on a 12" LP. Prior to Vari-Pitch, all cutting was done at a constant pitch setting with no accomodation for levels.I hate to burst a bubble here, but the vast majority of modern (mid-80s to present) disk cutting systems use a pcm digital delay to feed the cutter head, regardless of the recording source. In the case of analog tape, the direct tape machine output feeds the pre-delay control signal to control the cutting pitch. A pcm digital delay of the same signal feeds the cutter head. Exceptions would be where the system is set up with an analog pre-delay tape head prior to the main tape machine PB head. That's the way it was done prior to the advent of high-quality pcm digital delays. I'd like to think that ace mastering engineers such as Steve Hoffman would be using the all-analog method rather than a pcm delay in the chain. I've been out of the loop in LP mastering awhile so I don't really know.
Best Regards,
HowdyAt MikeL's house on his Rockport Sirius III with single sided half speed mastered 45... discs I thought (just a few times) I could hear a pre-echo, telegraphing or a shadow of what was coming a revolution later, since I don't believe it was a failing of the TT or the disc, I wounder if it was a change in the recording pitch when a change in dynamics was approaching. Does this sound possible or is it something more mundane?
What you're hearing is likely "pre-echo." That can occur as a mastering defect if the cutting pitch wasn't expanded enough. Normally, at the beginning of each track the pitch is supposed to be overly coarse (lots of land between the grooves) to minimize pre-echo. Pre-echo can also occur as a pressing defect, particularily if the vinyl press is set up with too much pressing pressure on the "biscuit" of vinyl.You could also be experiencing "print-through" from the original analog tape if that was the source for the recording in question. You'll hear print-through a lot on older analog tapes with no noise reduction or that were recorded too "hot" to tape. Frequently, just being stored for a long time - and perhaps with too tight of a tape wind - the print-through occurs.
Best Regards,
HowdyDSD has 6dB of soft clip at the top not hard like PCM, so in fact you can go to +6dB in DSD. Just like analog you want to avoid if possible since there is some loss of signal quality when you use it. I'm told it sounds like tape saturation.
In my experience, it doesn't sound as benign or 'euphonic' as tape saturation - I refer to it as 'scar tissue' as it's obvious (and difficult to remove) once it's there. Short peaks are fine, but any longer and "ouch!"As usual, thanks for all of your helpful posts, particularly the recent SACD MCh discussion - I wish more people could/would hear it done well!
Best,
However, in practice, +3dB is not very useful, since on analog tape you can easily achieve +10-15dB without too much ill effects (provided the peaks are fairly irregular, otherwise the tape will over-saturate).I've been doing a lot of field recording lately, and I certainly miss the headroom you get on tape! No matter how carefully I set the recording levels, I always get some clips. And I don't want to set the levels too low, otherwise the recording as a whole sounds rather murky.
With a supposed 70 Dbs, heck even a claim of 90 Dbs of possible range, why do you insist in over saturating the tape, thus causing other possible ill effects to the sound?
Deliberately over-saturating drums for example creates a very nice thud. You've probably heard that thud in countless 80s pop albums!These days it's possible to digitally simulate the effect of tape saturation, but that thud sound is no longer "fashionable". The so called "New York" style popular in the late 90s and early 00s instead is created by hypercompressing the drums and mixing the result together with the original uncompressed version. Creates a different kind of "thud" - more edge to it.
HowdyNot that I hold the Wikipedia to be the best reference, it at least is widely available: "...Unlike CD, which sets the 0dB level right at the theoretical PCM signal limit, and doesn't take into account oversampling, SACD sets the 0 dB level at 6 dB below the theoretical full-scale DSD signal, and prohibits peaks above +3 dB..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD
Also here's a post from Graemme in on a conversation you (and Christine) were a part of: http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/messages/182566.html
Both say something I should have been more explicit about, tho there is some head room, it's really just 3dB not 6dB as I implied because using the last 3dB is illegal according to the spec.
Graemme weighed in other times: http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?searchtext=db&author=Graemme&forum=hirez
Wait, lets not bring digital compression into the picture, OK that has not much to do with the the dynamics of the signal it has a lot more to do with the amplitude of the high frequency components in the frequency domain of the signal. A very dynamic low frequency signal will digitally compress a lot better than a loud but steady high frequency ring, and the loss less compression will affect the amplitude and the dynamic range of the signal exactly 0 db. Even lossy compression will not affect the dynamic range of the signal a great deal it will just limit how fast the signal can reach peak amplitude. Dynamic compression is a purely analog artifact and it affects only the amplitude differences of the signal, it only changes the frequency domain picture as much it reduces the rise time of the signal from volume A to volume B.I hope this did not confuse anybody :-)
*** A very dynamic low frequency signal will digitally compress a lot better than a loud but steady high frequency ring, and the loss less compression will affect the amplitude and the dynamic range of the signal exactly 0 db. ***This is not true, and you can check this out yourself by observing the compression ratios of various codecs depending on the source signal.
Steady state sine waves compress very well, regardless of amplitude or frequency. More so than a "very dynamic low frequency signal." If you don't believe me you can test it out yourself. Synthesize two signals: one a constant sine wave at 15kHz 0dB amplitude, and the other a low 50 Hz signal that varies in amplitude from -96dB to 0dB (you can modulate this using a sine or triangle wave).
The first signal will losslessly compress better than the second signal. At least on a codec that compresses based on a Fourier transform. Even WinZip will compress the first signal better than the second, and WinZip is notoriously poor at compressing audio.
I didn't bring digital compression into the picture, Robert did (in his reference to the Mahler recording). But you are right that lossless bitstream compression is not the same thing as dynamic compression. But I don't think that Robert was necessarily confusing the two either, he was simply citing two unrelated things that affect the maximum amount of recording time (groove spacing on LP, vs lossless compression ratio on SACD).
I was not thinking about pure tones, when i was referring to a ring i was thinking more like ringing of a bell or a triangle real loud, vs playing the lowest registers of an organ (better than a piano or standing base, because of the lower HF content. the bell or triangle will have an almost continuous Fourier transform in the HF region, the low freq pipe organ will have a pretty simple spectrum. Even though the pipe organ will have a larger volume, its digitized waveform will compress much better. If you start playing with synthesized tones, things will become very different.dee
;-D
True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country.
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: